Case law

Ryan v. County of Imperial

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2022

did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. 5 Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil 6 damages unless their conduct “violated a clearly established … To determine whether an official 9 is entitled to qualified immunity, the court examines “(1) whether the official’s conduct 10 violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the

United States v. Sam Ellis Stores, Inc.

768 F. Supp. 286 · District Court, S.D. California · May 1, 1991

Subsection (c)(4) [of § 7430] clearly states: “The term ‘position of the United States’ includes (A) the position taken by the United States in the civil proceeding, and (B) any administrative action or inaction by the District … [T]he exception for “limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved” must refer to attorneys “qualified for the proceedings” in some specialized sense, rather than just in their general legal competence

United States v. State of California

208 F. Supp. 861 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 14, 1962

And since the cause of action here asserted by the Federal Government accrued in November of 1957, California would be clearly immune from suit under the circumstances alleged, had the action been brought by a private individual … immunity in the plan of the convention’ ”.

Enriquez v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 26, 2024

Qualified Immunity 5 The County next argues that the Deputy Doe Defendants are entitled to qualified 6 immunity and should be dismissed. … The court found the law was clearly established 17 in that punching and gang tackling could have been unconstitutional and denied giving 18 the officers qualified immunity. Id. at 482.

United States v. Alvarado-Torres

45 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 19, 1999

Even assuming that a consular representative had attempted to render legal advice, such actions would clearly violate the terms of the Convention. … See Convention, art. 44 (immunity protects consular representatives from having to testify as to the exercise of their duties).

Shine v. Fuston

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2021

The Defendant Officers can’t rely on 22 qualified immunity to dismiss the § 1983 unlawful seizure claim. 23 C. … Because 16 clearly established law would put a reasonable officer on notice that the force 17 Johnston and Fuston allegedly used was unreasonable under the circumstances, 18 qualified immunity is unavailable to them

Moriarty v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 24, 2019

The 8 dispositive question is whether the violative nature of the defendant’s particular actions 9 was clearly established. Id. (citation omitted). … If the constitutionality of an official’s 13 action was unclear or debatable, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Rhinehart v. Montgomery

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 19, 2025

Qualified Immunity 4 In objecting to the R&R’s determination that Arvizu and Rodriguez are entitled to 5 qualified immunity, Plaintiff mostly focuses on the merits of … immunity, [courts] 15 consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether 16 that right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct.”

Amaral v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 7, 2021

The case also involved the scope of qualified immunity. See, e.g., 8 Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting it is important for 9 civil rights litigants to test legal boundaries). … And it did not 14 determine whether a constitutional violation related to the unlawful force claim occurred. 15 Instead, the decision rested on qualified immunity’s second prong, whether the right was 16 clearly established

Vuz v. DCSS III, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 9, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government officials 14 performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct 15 violates clearly established rights. Anderson v. … immunity on the 17 conditions of confinement claim, the Court must determine whether there is clearly 18 established law “‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.”

Moore

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 4, 2026

Id. 8 Furthermore, for the “prospective injunctive relief” exception to Eleventh Amendment 9 immunity to apply, the plaintiff must establish a continuing violation of federal law. Green 10 v. … All payments must be clearly identified 13 by the name and number assigned to this action. 14 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order by U.S.

Lilly v. University of California- San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 19, 2022

Qualified Immunity 20 The applicability of qualified immunity should be decided as early as possible in 21 litigation—preferably before discovery—as it is a complete … for the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. 26 Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages 27 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Sekerke v. City of National City

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 3, 2020

The defense of qualified immunity fails only if the court 13 finds both that a constitutional right has been violated and that the right was clearly 14 established at the time. Id. … The Court will therefore discuss whether the law 18 regarding Individual Defendant’s alleged Fourth Amendment violations is clearly 19 established such that qualified immunity would not bar Plaintiff’s claims, if properly

Bell v. Hood

71 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, S.D. California · May 2, 1947

The immunity of the Federal Government from suit extends to all federal officers and agents acting within the scope of their duties as such. Kendall v. … Thus long-established precedent holds there is ground for equitable relief when a federal officer threatens to exceed his authority.

C.H.B. Foods, Inc. v. Rebelo

662 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 11, 1987

Clearly Ferreira is not immunized from liability by any particular statute or rule. Nevertheless, Rebelo could not sue Ferreira for his injuries. This is a maritime case. … Thus, there is no statutory immunity from suit as there is in the longshoremen's cases.

Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles v. Republic Pictures Corp.

97 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 26, 1951

The federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.” 6 (Emphasis added). The other is by Mr. … But these cases say no more than that, in determining whether jurisdiction exists, the decisive test is the nature of the right sought to be established and not the source of the authority to establish it.

Harris v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 25, 2025

immunity.1 Motion at 5-8. … Qualified immunity confers upon officials “a right, not merely to avoid ‘standing trial,’ but also to avoid the burdens of ‘such pretrial 27 matters as discovery.’” Id. (citing Behrens v.

Ramirez v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · May 15, 2024

“Government officials enjoy qualified 25 immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory 26 or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 1 immunity, we ask two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional 2 right, and whether that right was clearly established

Clover v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 12, 2021

(See Docket no. 44 at 3:5–13.) 8 Campbell-Ewald at 167–68 (distinguishing between qualified and derivative 9 immunity). … Defendants have not shown why qualified immunity would apply here, 10 even if they had adequately raised it. See Carter v. City of Carlsbad, 799 F. Supp. 11 2d 1147, 1164 (S.D.

(PC) Daniels v. Moreno

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 7, 2025

No. 66.2 Alternatively, they argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”